Scituate plan commission recommends adding Route 6 corner to future land‑use map; council takes no action

The Scituate Plan Commission voted July 24 to recommend amending the town’s comprehensive plan to change Lot 18 (5 Ridgewood Drive) from RR‑120 (residential) to BG (General Business). The Town Council held a concurrent public hearing but did not adopt the amendment after a council motion to rezone failed to receive a second. The applicant later asked to withdraw the separate zoning‑map change application without prejudice.

The measure before both bodies was a two‑step process: first, whether the parcel should be reclassified on the comprehensive plan’s future land‑use map; second, if the plan amendment passed, a separate zone‑change application would follow. Chairman Jeff Hanson said the public‑hearing step “is whether or not this particular parcel should be moved from RR‑120 to General Business.” He added that specific proposals for uses would be considered later by the plan commission if the zoning change were approved. Attorney Danielle Dufault, representing the applicant, said the lot is the single parcel at the corner of Ridgewood and Route 6 and asked the bodies to consider the plan‑map amendment.

Residents who live near the lot urged the bodies to keep the parcel residential. Diane Scacco of Crestview Drive told the commission, “We know when we built what was commercial and what was residential, and that was residential,” and warned that approving the change “is a precedent.” Brenda Walsh said traffic and the effect on private wells were central concerns: “If this little [parcel]…were your house, I don’t think you’d be proposing what you’re proposing because you would be dealing with, like Diane said, trying to get out of that street.” Several speakers raised the possibility that a zone change would encourage further commercial conversions on properties along Route 6.

The applicant’s planning expert, Edward Pimentel, described the parcel as a 19,000‑square‑foot “standalone” lot that “is a spot zone lot” and argued it is surrounded by commercial classification on the town’s mapping and therefore appropriate to absorb into the GB district. Pimentel said the town’s recently adopted comprehensive plan “states under your land use goals to encourage the appropriate utilization and expansion of existing business districts.” He also noted practical limits on what could be built on a parcel of the lot’s size and topography.

The Scituate Plan Commission moved and seconded a motion to modify the comprehensive plan’s future land‑use map for the parcel from RR‑120 to BG and voted in favor, with the commission’s prior April recommendation included in the record. At the council hearing, a motion to rezone to BG was made but received no second, so the council did not vote on the amendment. Acting President D'Agostino explained that “there was a motion ... that motion did not get a second, so there was no action on item 3a.” Afterward, the applicant asked to withdraw the separate zoning‑map application (the formal zone‑change petition) without prejudice, and the council closed the public hearing on that petition.

Several speakers asked the council to consider limiting vehicle access if the property were developed; the plan commission’s earlier recommendation records a condition that future site access be limited to Hartford Pike rather than Ridgewood Drive. Chairman Hanson reiterated that any specific proposal would be subject to development‑plan review, which would examine traffic, lighting, noise and other neighborhood impacts.

The record contains inconsistent references to the applicant’s business name in the hearing (appearing as both “Colby Enterprises” and “Cabela Enterprises LLC” in different places). Attorney Danielle Dufault acknowledged the applicant and presented planning testimony for the owner; she later informed the council the applicant wished to withdraw its zoning application. The withdrawal leaves the parcel as RR‑120 on the town’s zoning map for now; if the applicant or another owner brings the same proposal again, the council would hear the rezoning after whatever administrative notice and procedures the town requires.

With the council not acting, the plan commission’s positive recommendation is in the record but does not itself change the town’s adopted plan. Chairman Hanson and others noted that returning the matter later would require renotification and advertising for another public hearing if the council wanted to hear the zone‑change petition at a later date.